I've just started messing around with C1-7 by importing my last shoot from a few weeks ago on the Northern California coast in Eureka and north. This shoot included boat marinas and beaches. Several of the marina images have already been printed for a client's office, but after starting from scratch in 7, I'm going to reprint the entire batch despite being extremely happy with the prints (until seeing the new output). Resolution is higher, and I don't mean the appearance of resolution by tweaking contrast--houses a mile or more across the bay now have detail rather than slightly blurry shapes as determined my the 100% loupe tool. the Clarity tool with "structure" and "punch" are phenomenal! I've just gotten into it today and yet to read the materials but will, but can tell you this--it's well worth the $90 upgrade fee. Hell, just the improved output tonight on this one job was worth it. I don't think I've endorsed much if anything on here but when a company does something right they should get credit for it.

Sorry guys, but I don't see the same things as you do. In this new "Image Quality Revolution" I only see over-sharpened and/or over-clarified, at least for the default settings, and no adjustment I have tried brings it up to the 6.4.4 IQ level. Foliage and trees gets very bloated and coarse. Check this crop from an EOS 1-Ds. It's almost as bad from a Nikon D3 as well.

Sorry guys, but I don't see the same things as you do. In this new "Image Quality Revolution" I only see over-sharpened and/or over-clarified, at least for the default settings, and no adjustment I have tried brings it up to the 6.4.4 IQ level. Foliage and trees gets very bloated and coarse. Check this crop from an EOS 1-Ds. It's almost as bad from a Nikon D3 as well.

Hi,

I agree that there is quite a bit of hype going on. The results are better, and I like them as well, but the improvement is more subtle than some report.

As for your example, it looks like your Radius setting might be a bit high. You may also need to reduce some of the noise reduction if you use low ISO shots. It looks like sharpening and noise reduction are interrelated. Maybe some of the hype comes from the use of high ISO which benefits from the improved noise reduction. The demosaicing is more accurate and produces fewer isolated pixels which used to stand in the way of sharpening.

It's real improvement and pretty significant. But only for cameras it has currently been optimized for and then only for those that know how to use the program properly. If you take the time to learn it well and have a Phase back, you will most certainly see the "wow" results.

It's real improvement and pretty significant. But only for cameras it has currently been optimized for and then only for those that know how to use the program properly. If you take the time to learn it well and have a Phase back, you will most certainly see the "wow" results.

Hi Jack,

Well, maybe the performance for Phase One backs wasn't that good then ... I'm glad it's better now.

I do know how to use the program well, and perhaps that's why the differences were not that striking to me ... I even developed a tool for the optimization of Capture sharpening, to give you an idea of my dedication to quality.

Here's an example of the (IMHO subtle) kind of improvement in highlight rendering that I experience, and welcome very much. All the settings were identical, except for the engine version and a highlight (clipping point) levels adjustment due to the new processing engine:Click on the image for actual resolution, since the forum software downsamples too much.

It's a crop from one tile of a panorama that I intended to process as a '7-exposure per tile HDR' image. I'll probably just use this single exposure tile now, since the shadows also have enough definition.

That may not seem like much of an improvement to some, but for me things like this are relevant enough to like the upgrade.

I almost never bother responding to comments like these, and probably shouldn't here either, but...

I'm sure your shot containing clouds and flying raptors is very good, and congratulations on obtaining a very good exposure (at least for your chosen WB) with just the slight spot of B channel clip. However, for the 'Wow' factor in this discussion, myself and I believe GDH too were referring to images containing significantly more detail -- specifically in all ranges of low, medium through high frequency detail -- as well as including those with more DR containing perhaps partially (single-channel) blocked shadows and up to perhaps 1/3rd stop clipped single-channel highlights. If one takes the time to investigate both of the above situations, I am certain they will see a larger 'Wow' component to the V7 upgrade.

I'm sure you are a capable C1 user, and given the way you talk about your prowess are possibly even a certified C1 expert? Regardless, I assume like me you have been using the new V7 betas for the past several months as well and are now completely comfortable with all of the new conventions and revised processing engine nuances... Understand that my comment here was more directed to folks who for the first time are downloading and trying C1 -- as you are no doubt well aware, the C1 learning curve can be steep for many and UI conventions are not all that intuitive to new users.

As re your (continual) digs at Phase backs and frankly all DB's in general, this is a rather common quip we hear from folks that have only ever shot with low to mid-resolution DSLR's. Here my advice is to step back from any web-expert arrogance and try before knocking; take a workshop like Michael's, ours or a PODAS where you can get your hands on a relatively current DB and generate the types of files you typically work with. Heck, even a friend with an older back like the Hassy 39, P45+ or even Leaf 75 can show you they'll edge out a 5D3 or D800 when properly used and processed. If you cannot manage a high-end workshop or don't have any friends (with DB's), then contact me for a complimentary cup of coffee and 20-minute eye-opener next time you find yourself in the Silicon Valley area.

This may be correct if you are a medium format digital back user, but I guess most C1 users have DSLRs. I have used C1 since the 3.x era and it has always been the preferred raw converter for my Canon EOS 1Ds. Every version since then has delivered the little extra compared to the competition.

C1-7 may have better noise handling and may extract more low level details, but if this is at the expense of the natural colors and look of the previous versions, it's not an advance as I see it. I also think that the results you get from the default settings in a raw converter should be the best a software company can achieve for a given camera. It's always possible to tweaks everything to your own liking, but if you have to do it to every picture?

If this new v7 is "optimized" for new cameras only, and only works for those who are "experts", I guess I have to continue with v6.

I almost never bother responding to comments like these, and probably shouldn't here either, but...

I'm sure your shot containing clouds and flying raptors is very good, and congratulations on obtaining a very good exposure (at least for your chosen WB) with just the slight spot of B channel clip. However, for the 'Wow' factor in this discussion, myself and I believe GDH too were referring to images containing significantly more detail -- specifically in all ranges of low, medium through high frequency detail -- as well as including those with more DR containing perhaps partially (single-channel) blocked shadows and up to perhaps 1/3rd stop clipped single-channel highlights. If one takes the time to investigate both of the above situations, I am certain they will see a larger 'Wow' component to the V7 upgrade.

Hi Jack,

Of course I've also looked at those things.

Quote

I'm sure you are a capable C1 user, and given the way you talk about your prowess are possibly even a certified C1 expert? Regardless, I assume like me you have been using the new V7 betas for the past several months as well and are now completely comfortable with all of the new conventions and revised processing engine nuances... Understand that my comment here was more directed to folks who for the first time are downloading and trying C1 -- as you are no doubt well aware, the C1 learning curve can be steep for many and UI conventions are not all that intuitive to new users.

It is my distinct impression that, especially for first time users, the quality improvements are being hyped beyond the clear improvement that did take place. I'm not talking about creative processing of the image, but real quality Raw conversion. As I said, I like what I see, but one has to look closely before it's obvious that things indeed have improved.

Here are a few other examples (click on the previews for the full size).

First an overview crop at 100% zoom (only initial capture sharpening by CaptureOne Pro 7, other basic settings are also the same), hopefully with enough detail to satisfy your wish:

At first glance they look pretty similar, but note the letters on the name shield. I'll zoom in to make the differences clearer (click on the image):

You can see how much cleaner the conversion is (do consider that it's a 400% zoom). There are far fewer isolated pixels that made it hard to enlarge the image before without a lot of work or edge preserving noise reduction. And also the diagonal rope has a less jagged look, something that's also showing on other sharp edge detail:

Check out the edges, the shadow noise and the rope detail (click on the image, otherwise the differences will be even more subtle). Overall the image is cleaner (without any noise reduction) and more realistic, and offers a better basis for additional processing. A definite improvement, and it was necessary. Is it better than other alternatives? Well there are also other factors that come in for that equation as well. C1 has been my first choice for Raw conversions for some time already, but the alternatives were breathing down C1's neck. It now has some nice features that can make the difference.

Quote

As re your (continual) digs at Phase backs and frankly all DB's in general, this is a rather common quip we hear from folks that have only ever shot with low to mid-resolution DSLR's.

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is a thread about software. CCDs and CMOS devices pose different challenges for a Raw converter, especially when no AA-filter will/can be used. Even the D800E conversions are different from the D800 conversions, and not only in resolution. I'll have to re-test those and see if the red artifacts on D800E edge detail have gone.

Quote

Here my advice is to step back from any web-expert arrogance and try before knocking; take a workshop like Michael's, ours or a PODAS where you can get your hands on a relatively current DB and generate the types of files you typically work with. Heck, even a friend with an older back like the Hassy 39, P45+ or even Leaf 75 can show you they'll edge out a 5D3 or D800 when properly used and processed. If you cannot manage a high-end workshop or don't have any friends (with DB's), then contact me for a complimentary cup of coffee and 20-minute eye-opener next time you find yourself in the Silicon Valley area.

It is my distinct impression that, especially for first time users, the quality improvements are being hyped beyond the clear improvement that did take place. I'm not talking about creative processing of the image, but real quality Raw conversion. As I said, I like what I see, but one has to look closely before it's obvious that things indeed have improved....You can see how much cleaner the conversion is (do consider that it's a 400% zoom). There are far fewer isolated pixels that made it hard to enlarge the image before without a lot of work or edge preserving noise reduction. And also the diagonal rope has a less jagged look, something that's also showing on other sharp edge detail:...

Check out the edges, the shadow noise and the rope detail (click on the image, otherwise the differences will be even more subtle). Overall the image is cleaner (without any noise reduction) and more realistic, and offers a better basis for additional processing. A definite improvement, ...

...

Cheers,Bart

Hi Bart

You're observations are in line with what I see with my Sony A850 pictures. There's a clear improvement, but you have to look for it. I'm also pleased that the colors are still the same -great- colors.I also have the impression the images have also a little bit more contrast and are brighter.

For current users it's clearly a nice improvement.

BTW. Maybe Phase One still has to improve the Sony A850 like it seem to have done for other camera's, I would certainly be happy about yet another extra improvement ;-)

This may be correct if you are a medium format digital back user, but I guess most C1 users have DSLRs. I have used C1 since the 3.x era and it has always been the preferred raw converter for my Canon EOS 1Ds. Every version since then has delivered the little extra compared to the competition.

C1-7 may have better noise handling and may extract more low level details, but if this is at the expense of the natural colors and look of the previous versions, it's not an advance as I see it. I also think that the results you get from the default settings in a raw converter should be the best a software company can achieve for a given camera. It's always possible to tweaks everything to your own liking, but if you have to do it to every picture?

If this new v7 is "optimized" for new cameras only, and only works for those who are "experts", I guess I have to continue with v6.

FWIW, I'm finding excellent color from my D800 in 7. I did go back and process a few of my old high ISO 1Ds2 files (800 and 1600) and was impressed with lack of noise, improved detail and color fidelity, but I did not do a lengthy comparison beyond that. I cannot speak directly to any other DSLR's since I have not worked on any files yet. What's important for me is it sings with my current Phase files and it sings (for me) with my current D800 files. At least interested users can download and demo the software for free and see if it works for them.

Part of this is expectations and semantics I suppose. We all agree there is an improvement in underlying image quality of conversion.

When I first started working with the early betas I was not convinced I saw any improvement. Part of this was due to some very poor presets for noise reduction and sharpening in the early betas for the camera I was testing (mostly Phase One and Canon). It would not surprise me if some of the lower-market-share cameras like the Sony still need some tweaks to the presets (perhaps even some of the underlying math).

Also, the improvements are not huge on every image. They will be greater:- when the raw is already sharp. Out of focus images benefit much less from the improved debayer (though they still benefit from the better noise reduction). So images shot at unsharp low apertures (like the Canon 1.2 lenses wide open) higher apertures that are diffracted (e.g. f/16 on a D800) or with mediocre quality lenses. Likewise my initial evaluation leads me to believe the AA-free sensors benefit more than the AA'd sensors - though I don't have any direct comparisons to make a more rigorous evaluation.- when the subject matter has very fine detail, especially if the detail is of a repeating or geometric nature- when the subject matter has significant single-pixel wide lines

Also, the increased sharpness/detail is only half the story to look at. The other part is the much lower occurrence of artifacts. Less moire (even without post-debayer moire reduction), less single pixel noise (and better post-debayer single pixel noise reduction when needed), and less, and better angled lines. This is a nice improvement when the image is presented at defaults, but is even more impressive when making enlargements (e.g. uprezzing for a really big print) or adding sharpening.

Lastly the improvements are made to the guesswork of filling in the missing information from the bayer pattern. Which inherently means that there are a small number of instances when v6 actually produced a more correct/pleasing result for a specific part of the image. In this shot for instance the very tight-knit clothing looks MUCH better in v7 in about 70% of the fabric, moderately better in about 20% of the fabric and moderately worse in 10% of the areas of fabric. This is also the case in other test images I've spent extensive time with. So from that point of view it's possible to over analyze and look for any area of weakness rather than making a holistic evaluation.

Whether it's overhyped, a major improvement, or subtle change, is semantics and relative to your expectations. I honestly did not think there was room to improve debayering math at this point (considering the math has been around in some form since the mid 70s). So for me my expectations are low when it comes to new software providing significantly better rendering of detail for existing raw files, and my expectations were greatly exceeded.

The improvements in highlight/shadow recovery, high ISO noise reduction (not addressed in this post) are quite large in my opinion.

I agree with you, Doug. I am using a D3s and I have to set the sharpening radius to 0.5, threshold to 0 and apply fairly high degrees of sharpening (especially compared to the defaults or compared to my old 5D mk I files). I think the sharpening lacks a deconvolution option in order to compensate for the AA filter. And yes, out of focus areas are not as smooth as I would wish but show a somewhat "porridge-like" structure.

But the most important thing: Noise reduction is dramatically better and rivaling ACR. The approach is still somewhat different to ACR, C1's punchier look has been preserved. And I agree that one still has to be careful with the default settings. I found that I got better results when setting the luminance slider back to 20, allowing a little more but now very uniform noise at higher ISOs. The rectangular artifacts are gone unless you crank up the detail slider too much. The add grain slider now is a fine addition but could use a second one that varies the grain size.

My second most important wish was automatic correction of CA, vignetting and distortion and it too has been fulfilled. I expect the lens list to grow fast (the 14-24 Nikkor isn't yet on the list and many lightweight zooms and my S95 or similar compacts also yearn for automatic correction). But the most important step is done and it's good to see that Phaseone still honours users of other brands and systems.

Local adjustments now even have a gradient tool. Hooray! There's really nothing to be ashamed of when doing things similar to ACR. On the contrary, it provides more competition and that is good for all of us. I just didn't get why white balance is not yet among the local adjustments since this would be my most frequent use of it.

The so-called HDR sliders improved a lot, especially the shadows slider. They are now a really useable tool with intuitive function. And having to deal with catalogues and not only sessions is a wonderful treat (and a big ease) for LR users or swappers like me.

Sharpening results are now displayed properly and not only at 100%.

Congratulations to the developers.

So no more wishes? There are still some, but apparently minor ones:

The spot removal tool works extremely well but fails when you have a spot in areas of fine detail like facades or on a single line. A cloning option would help to save starting up PS. Or maybe there is an even better solution than that.

The LZW compression for TIFFs still leads to far bigger files compared to PS or LR. If the algorithm is scalable please let the users decide otherwise please give us an option for smaller files. With still growing pixel counts this keeps our drives from filling up to soon. Drive space is cheap but it's not free.

The color profiles for my Nikons (unlike those for the canons) still have some reddish/purple cast in the shadows of caucasian portraits even when lit with studio strobes and white balancing with a grey card. Since even the color editor doesn't distinguish between highlights, midtones and shadows there is no way to custom correct this. Software for creating your own profiles is still very costly and I doubt if I could get better results with it. This appears to be something of an art. Magne Nilsen used to create genius profiles but doesn't do so anymore (If you are reading this, Magne, you are more than welcome to contact me!).

Software for creating your own profiles is still very costly and I doubt if I could get better results with it. This appears to be something of an art. Magne Nilsen used to create genius profiles but doesn't do so anymore (If you are reading this, Magne, you are more than welcome to contact me!).

If there was a way to create ICC camera profiles as good as Magne's, C1 would be my go-to developer. The canned profiles (for Canon DSLRs) just don't cut it for my needs.